Veroq

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Adds critical behavioral context missing from schema: COST (5-100 credits), RETURNS structure (execution steps with status/summary), and concrete EXAMPLE. Missing timeout/async behavior or error handling details, but covers financial and output semantics well.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Excellent structure with labeled sections (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE). Every line delivers unique information. Front-loaded with core action, followed by usage context, then operational details. No redundancy or filler despite covering complex multi-faceted behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Compensates well for missing output schema by detailing return values (agent name, execution steps, final output, credits). Addresses complexity of nested 'inputs' object through example. Given the tool orchestrates arbitrary multi-step workflows, the description provides sufficient guardrails for safe invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds significant value via concrete JSON example showing nested 'inputs' structure ({ ticker: 'AAPL' }), clarifying how to populate the free-form object parameter. Also notes that inputs vary by agent type, adding semantic context beyond schema constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear verb+resource ('Run a VEROQ AI agent') with specific scope ('pre-built workflows combining multiple data sources'). Explicitly distinguishes from 50+ siblings by stating agents 'automate what would take many individual tool calls,' positioning it as the orchestration layer versus single-purpose data tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit WHEN TO USE section lists specific scenarios (portfolio reviews, due diligence, market scans). Implicitly defines boundaries by contrasting with individual tool calls. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' (e.g., simple queries), but provides clear positive guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.